would you trade ben reid or nathan brown in return for maverick weller + a late first rounder?
Harry Taylor
- Thread starter Dudley Leopard
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
would you trade ben reid or nathan brown in return for maverick weller + a late first rounder?
- Banned
- #302
You offer no circumstance/situation from which to draw a conclusion from, in order to answer that. Btw, we're not talking about every possible variant that "always" affords. We're discussing Taylor's situation. Your framing of the question is going to lead to a semantic debate.
Hey its your statement. Its attribute . Yes or No.
If it is YES , the 1c on the dollar is acceptable to your thinking.
If it is NO , then it must be decided at what point an offer becomes worth something and that point us what our discussion has all been about.
Your have proposed from the start that a fair offer in the eyes of the person/team offering that offer determines the fairness. Anyone who fails to see that as fair and take it is "foolish". That line of thinking when taken to extremes enable a "1c on the dollar" offer.
I have said from the start that the outcome would favour the team receiving HT , any deal done would be less than equitable but to be less than fair , would stall the deal.
Geelong will not accept an outright contemptuous deal , it must be fair in their eyes or it will not be done
- May 22, 2012
- 3,648
- 6,189
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Box Hill
We'll take Weller and the first rounder for that price.
go ahead and trade roughhead for that then
What Zac Clarke decides to do could have a massive bearing on the trade.
Freo will not want to lose him especially with Sandi on his last legs, but we do have backup in Griffen and Hannath.
Clarke is better than both combined
However if he does decide to go back home I'm sure we could package him in a deal for Harry. If Hickey was somehow worth early picks then Clarke must hold a fair bit of value on the trade table
Freo will not want to lose him especially with Sandi on his last legs, but we do have backup in Griffen and Hannath.
Clarke is better than both combined
However if he does decide to go back home I'm sure we could package him in a deal for Harry. If Hickey was somehow worth early picks then Clarke must hold a fair bit of value on the trade table
Schwabby? Is that you?
Talk about eggs in one basket. That effectively removes us from this draft for a 27.5 yo defender. Yikes.
Lol, I was just about to say now way you are getting Michie and Smith. Michie will be playing in our midfield as soon as his fitness is up. And Tanner Smith is one of the few KPD we have on our list (along with McPharlin and Faulks and maybe Dawson).The fact that there isn't a player on our list you rate speaks more of your ignorance of our list than the actual quality of our list.
You can compare him to Dusty, but I'd doubt he'll play past 32, so we'll get a couple of seasons of service out of him - not 10.
i was saying it in the context of what would be tradable, obviously fye hill pavlich sandilands balantyne are off limits, i rate these players, i was looking outside the obvious off limits players and seeing what would and could be offered
possibly suban maybe? chris maine? + first rounder
no i dont think throwing in an untried 2-3 round draft selection a few years back will do anything for the trade
if you want to trade an untried young kid for an AA CHB, he will have to be a high draft choice who is rated very highly, viv michie or tanner smith wont fit this bill, if you want to trade a kid id rather josh simpson be thrown into the trade, but obviously being a local perth boy he fits the perfect ideal footballer for fremantle to hang onto for 10+ years, local grown talent
if u could get a first round pick for him off a victorian club, then pass that + your own first selection, we would probably take that at the end of the day, 1 first rounder plus a fringe wouldnt be enough thought
Suban or Crozier might be traded. I don't think Josh Simpson will make the transition to the Cattery. Reports have him as a bit homesick now, and he's only a couple of hundred K's from home.
I don't think we would trade Mayne, but I'm not really privy to the inner sanctums ponderings.
Mayne bleeds purple, not in a million years would he leave
croz re-signed
- Banned
- #315
I said "something is better than nothing?". You've loaded the question in an attempt to create a straw-man by saying "Is something always better than nothing?" Your rephrasing of my statement makes for the difference in circumstance/situation that I mentioned, but you ignored. I won't be justifying a proposition that's not mine. Your rephrasing of my statement has seen to that. Don't be putting words in my mouth, for you're misrepresenting me by adding the word "always".
Again, you post a straw-man. I never said or implied that fairness stems from an "offer in the eyes of the person/team offering that offer determines the fairness." Your conclusion is what you've mistakenly inferred from my comments.
I have said from the start that WC/Freo should trade in good faith. You seem to have skipped over this inconvenient for your argument part. You'd rather come up with straw-man arguments instead. Your doing this, as well as you've done above with regards to your loaded rephrasing of my statement, makes you an idiot or a troll.
Your imagination has come up with the contemptuous deal scenario, for no one is calling for that. I've said that Geelong would be foolish to let HT go into the draft and get nothing in return, and that something is better than nothing, given WC/Freo's leverage. As I've mentioned previously "fair" is vague. It's meaningless without leverage and other considerations taken into account, as well as a reference point for what's fair. "Fair" is too ambiguous to use in this instance, for what's fair to one may not be fair to another.
Just like the other post you disagree with , now im an idiot or troll because I disagree with you
Did you say "something is better than nothing" yes. I asked "is it always" because something is not always better than nothing. If your frustrated I am too. you fail to see my point. There is a line that one side calls fair. The is a line the other side calls fair. Just because one side calls it fair and you deem they have leverage doe it make it fair?
Yes I exaggerated your point. You never suggested 1c on the dollar , that was my taking your point to the extreme. You do understand that if only one side has leverage , thats what happens... unless as I said about X number of posts ago they concede to something. To trade to maintain good will.
I have conceded over and over and over that We will not get what Harry is worth to us. But I fear that your idea of fair is not what I'd call fair.
So If WC has leverage but they will not be so rude as to offer 1c on the dollar , what will they offer.25?,35?49? You tell me what you think is fair.
But I have no interest in players that will be VFL mainstays. I have no interest in players that have no upside.
- Banned
- #317
No, you're not an idiot or a troll because you disagree with me, you're an idiot/troll for continually making straw-man arguments which misrepresent me. I've already explained this.
Did I say "something is better than nothing", yes. Did I say "something is always better than nothing", no. Therefore, it's not my proposition. I've already explained this. It's getting tiring pointing out your lack of comprehension. You asked "is it always", but you contradict yourself by admitting "Hey its your statement". Don't speak for me as to what I know of your point. This supposed line of what's "fair" is arbitrary. That's my point. "Fair" is vague. You provide no reference point as to what's fair and what's not. Hence "fair", in this case, is meaningless.
No, that's not what happens, for the football clubs involved act in a professional manner, so 1c on the dollar will not occur. One side having leverage means the side without it likely doesn't get market value. 1c on the dollar could happen if D&T board armchair experts were in control of proceedings though.
You've conceded this, but on the other hand have continually posted that Geelong won't trade HT unless the deal is "fair" to Geelong. My posts have continually pointed out that "fair" is meaningless in this circumstance. I've explained why previously. I haven't given my idea of "fair" because "fair" has no reference point, and hence no meaning in this instance.
WC will offer from what they reasonably have to give. WC can't force players to leave that don't want to go, especially those under contract. WC can't provide draft picks they don't have either. I've previously mentioned the futility of mentioning what's "fair", so I won't go into it.
I think Judd is another league from Harry in terms of trade value though. So was Ottens, although closer. It seems to me a 1st rounder and a decent young prospect is around trade value.
The other thing is that the current generation of recruiting staff at Freo have not overpaid for anyone. It may be a bit different because we are obviously in a hurry, but I still cannot see an over-the-top deal happening. They have been determined to keep the 1st round pick off the table in any negotiations, such as the failed Clark deal.
I would have thought the possibility of trading Tanner-Smith would be significantly more remote than trading a player like Michie (there are other names that could be on the list as exciting young mids). Emerging mids is where we have depth and where you are more likely to get value in a trade.
So "something is better than nothing"... sometimes not always..is that correct? Your strawman crap is just is wrong. Sham argument is wrong. It is your statement ... "something is better than nothing" , yet it must only be sometimes because you didn't mean always. So when isn't it?
Define reasonable because your accusing me of being an idiot yet its your statements that are sounding that way. Notice I say your statements. Not you. I wouldn't want to be insulting and make personal insults.
Reasonable to West Coast is what? West coast will be reasonable yes but not worry about fair. Tell me what is reasonable to WC. I say what your saying is reasonable is by any other definition what WC call fair. But if you want use Reasonable. Give me an idea of how reasonable WC is.
And you can trade for picks you don't have , clubs have traded players for picks many time before.
You don't want to give an inch in you position , possible just like West Coast at the trade table. If thats the case I cant see a smooth trade period happening
Harry isn't leaving
In an ideal world Geelong would not really partake in a trade that gives them another kid thats not ready to play. Michie as a name sounds interesting , at least the way has been described but unless being really familiar with his abilities , its very hard to judge if he would be anymore than another fringe kid like we have. Schroder,Stringer,Cowan,Burbury..... we have a lot of talented kids that need game time to elevate their game.
Id say his value will be around 2R1's to 1R and player of undefined quality
- Jun 6, 2010
- 4,030
- 12,851
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Dillon Panthers
Michelle Taylor disagrees.
Harrys mum reckons he is going home to Geraldton, grandkids not footy.
He may stay in Perth to complete his physio studies.
He may stay in Perth to complete his physio studies.
It would be Geelong wanting to make the trade at the request of their player. They will have far more pressure to get a deal done than Fremantle. But if you are thinking that Harry for Mitch Brown is a good deal, then I could see WC doing that trade in a heartbeat. They would have the same problem as the Cats, with a player wanting to leave and putting them under pressure to get the deal done.
FWIW I could see WC salivating at the prospect of some of Freo's emerging midfielders, opening a potential 3 way trade;
WC Lose; Brown and 3rd rounder GAIN; Michie and Mellington
GEELONG Lose; Harry GAIN; Brown and 2nd rounder
FREMANTLE Lose Michie, Mellington and 2nd rounder GAIN; Harry and 3rd rounder
Cats would take 2 x 1st rounders any day of the week, 52 weeks a year.
The (unlikely imo) context is that Harry is out of contract and requesting a trade.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
